BREAKING News From NYC – Judge Jeanine ATTACKED! This is OUTRAGEOUS!

BREAKING News From NYC – Judge Jeanine ATTACKED! This is OUTRAGEOUS!

Judge Jeanine Pirro is making headlines due to comments she made about Black Lives Matter leader DeRay McKesson. McKesson uses the term “civil rights activist” to describe himself, and now he’s firing back at Pirro with a nasty attack of his own and she’s going to need support to get by this brutal move by McKesson.

Back in September, Pirro appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss a lawsuit against the Black Lives Matter movement. The lawsuit originated from an officer who was injured from BLM led protests of the officer-involved shooting of Alton Sterling. Many BLM rioters hurled rocks at police, injuring a number of them. It’s undeniable that BLM was there to cause violence against police – so what does McKesson have a problem with?

McKesson was named in the lawsuit. Pirro claimed that McKesson was responsible for instructing protesters to commit horrible acts of violence. McKesson denies that he did any such thing. Now here we are watching a Black Lives Matter activist take a significant voice like Pirro knee-deep into a lawsuit.

“In this particular case, Deray Mckesson, the organizer, actually was directing people, was directing the violence,” she said. “You’ve got a police officer who was injured, he was injured at the direction of DeRay Mckesson, DeRay Mckesson walks away with a hundred thousand dollars, for an organization that is amorphous, we got a problem in this country.”

It’s staggering to see McKesson’s defense that he was just there to protest the “violence of the police,” when the whole reason there was a lawsuit against his movement is that some of the protesters who were violent could’ve killed a few police officers. The case was unsuccessful, and McKesson wasn’t charged with the crime.

After unsuccessfully asking Fox to retract the segment, McKesson filed a lawsuit of his own. According to the New York Daily News, “Fox News said it will fight the suit.

“We informed Mr. McKesson’s counsel that our commentary was fully protected under the First Amendment and the privilege for reports of judicial proceedings,” the network said.

Mckesson said Pirro’s comments have endangered his safety and seeks damages to be determined at trial.”

The lawsuit continues, stating that “the statements made by Pirro “are false, and were either known to be false by Defendant Pirro or were made with reckless disregard for whether they were true…Given the exposure made to an audience of 1.7 million people on the nature of DeRay’s work, the damage to his reputation is extremely significant.”

No one denies that the Black Lives Matter rioters were hurling rocks at police during the protest, but it’s just to state that McKesson had no involvement in that aspect of the protest.

Pirro said on social media that her comments were informed by a lawsuit brought by an anonymous officer. The case was filed after Black Lives Matter activists and Mr. Mckesson reached a $136,000 settlement with Baton Rouge police over a different case.

Just to give a reminder at the kind of behavior McKesson condones under the banner of “protesting,” back in 2015 he gave a lecture at Yale University titled “Transformational Leadership in the #BlackLivesMatter Movement,” he asked students to read an essay called “In Defense of Looting,” written during the riots in Ferguson following the death of Michael Brown.

“The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power,” the article argued. “On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, ‘opportunistically,’ and in excess.”

The essay continues “But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable? Or, as Hannah Black put it on Twitter: “Cops exist so people can’t loot ie have nice things for free so idk why it’s so confusing that people loot when they protest against cops” [sic]. Only if you believe that having nice things for free is amoral, if you believe, in short, that the current (white-supremacist, settler-colonialist) regime of property is just, can you believe that looting is amoral in itself.

White people deploy the idea of looting in a way that implies people of color are greedy and lazy, but it is just the opposite: looting is a hard-won and dangerous act with potentially terrible consequences, and looters are only stealing from the rich owners’ profit margins….”

Yale University confirmed that the reading was not on the pre-confirmed syllabus.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

BREAKING NEWS…. TRUMP Just Declared A NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!!

You probably didn’t see it in the mainstream media but among the executive orders signed by Donald Trump recently declared a national emergency. The executive order, addressed to Congress, states that pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, he’s declaring a national emergency with respect to “the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world.” In other words, the act is targeting international human rights abusers.

Given the timing of this order and the recent drama with the United Nations, which overwhelmingly passed a resolution dissenting from Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem of the capital of Israel, it’s apparently directed at many of those countries. It’s clear that they’ve gone unchecked thus far – and one should not look further than their treatment of Israel to prove as much. According to Unbiased America, in 2016, the U.N. general assembly passed five times more resolutions against Israel than against North Korea, Syria, Russia, Iran, and the rest of world combined.

The executive order reads:

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued the enclosed Executive Order (the “order”) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world. In addition to taking action under IEEPA, the order implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Public Law 114-328) (the “Act”) and delegates certain of its authorities.

The order blocks the property and interests in property of persons listed in the Annex to the order. It also blocks the property and interests in property of any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General:

(1) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse;

(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:

(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or

(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;

(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:

(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or

(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or

(4) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above.

The order also blocks any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General:

(5) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:

(a) any activity described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above that is conducted by a foreign person;

(b) any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order; or

(c) any entity described in (3)(a) above where the activity is conducted by a foreign person;

(6) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order; or

(7) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities described in (5) or (6) above.

In addition, the order suspends entry into the United States of any alien listed in the Annex or determined to meet one or more of the criteria above.

I have delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the Act, as may be necessary to implement the order and relevant provisions of the Act. I have delegated to the Secretary of State the authority to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the Act, as may be necessary to implement the provisions of the order and the Act suspending entry into the United States of certain aliens. All executive departments and agencies are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement the order.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 20, 2017.

According to Freedom Daily, the executive order is directed against some specific individuals. Among them include an Israeli billionaire, the head of Nicaragua’s electoral commission, and the former president of Gambia.They are:

BREAKING NEWS From Los Angeles… TRUMP Said HELL NO!!! This is HUGE!

Trump did it and now there’s breaking news from Los Angeles that our loyal readers may greatly enjoy! It’s truly incredible that the Federal government has allowed us to get to the point where there are literally hundreds of sanctuary cities across the United States that harbor illegal immigrant violent criminals. In those cities granting sanctuary status, illegal aliens can live worry free about having their immigration status reported back to federal law enforcement and they can commit more crimes that put Americans in danger.

Massive amounts of illegal immigrants (many criminals) flock to such sanctuary cities as it provides a layer of protection against deportation. One estimate shows that ten sanctuary cities house 20% of the U.S.’s illegal immigrants. As for the consequences of illegal immigration, there are two main problems that many discuss: displaced American jobs and lower wages due to intense competition from the influx of low-skilled workers. Don’t forget the element of criminal activity. The intense criminal activity of illegal immigrants could be considered shocking:

Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.

During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.

It’s astounding that the federal government has ever tolerated sanctuary cities, but the Trump administration could put a dire end to the atrocious model of Democratic mayors who persist to demonize our American cities and plague them with an increase in potential crimes by not participating with a request to report the violent illegal immigrants.

According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan, deportation targets have surged now that President Trump has “taken the handcuffs off of law enforcement.” The top ICE official explained that illegal border crossings have plummeted by nearly 70% since Trump took office, “arrests inside the country have jumped 40% and that demands for illegal criminals in local jails has skyrocketed 80%.”

Sanctuary cities will quickly become a better and safer place to live when they’re forced to ditch their beloved policies that favor illegal immigrants over American citizens.

Phoenix recently removed their sanctuary status and saw results very quickly. They’ve reported a decline in crime. Is there anything wrong with that?

According to Freedom Daily, “we are now getting reports that the Los Angeles Police Department has been denied $3 Million in federal aid for “law enforcement” purposes. Although there has been no official announcement as to why this funding has been denied it likely has something to do with Los Angeles’ lawless so-called “sanctuary city” status on harboring illegal aliens.

The U.S. Department of Justice hasn’t offered the LAPD an explanation of why the department didn’t receive any of the $98 million in grants recently awarded to scores of law enforcement agencies across the nation. A spokesman for the federal agency declined to comment when asked by The Times last week.

But after the Trump administration’s repeated threats to withhold federal money from cities that don’t cooperate with its immigration crackdown, some LAPD officials said they believe the move was retaliatory — and a troubling sign of what could come.

Steve Soboroff, president of the civilian Police Commission that oversees the LAPD, said that he believes the Justice Department denied the funding request because of the LAPD’s well-publicized, hands-off approach to immigration enforcement. Soboroff said he worries future funding may also be at risk.

“Community policing is what policing’s all about. Militaristic policing, immigrant harassment is not,” he said. “By ignoring that, or prioritizing it beneath their issue of sanctuary cities and cooperation with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] — the priorities are wrong.”

“If this is the tip of the iceberg, we’re going to set back law enforcement and policing and public safety by decades,” he added.

The LAPD had planned to use the money to hire 25 officers for the community policing program in Harvard Park, one of the city’s deadliest neighborhoods. The roughly half-mile area saw eight homicides in 2016, nearly triple the number from the year before. So far this year, six people have been killed.

Los Angeles mayor, Eric Garcetti, has openly defied Trump and been a vocal opponent of the #MAGA agenda. A mic.com article on Garcetti features such interludes as:

“We will defend any undocumented worker who’s going to be deported,” he said flatly in a recent interview. The words are backed up indeed: In December, Los Angeles unveiled an ambitious $10-million fund to provide legal counsel to residents facing deportation.

Los Angeles and Orange counties, after all, are home to 1 million undocumented immigrants, or nearly 10% of all undocumented immigrants nationwide. Los Angeles is also one of the major cities that has been targeted by ICE raids in the aftermath of the election.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell has said he’s afraid of losing $132 Million over the next three years because of his county’s harboring of illegal aliens.

Please share if you believe that a sanctuary city should not receive federal funding.

BREAKING NEWS About Hillary Clinton – They Just Found It! Prison Won’t Be Fun!

Would you believe that Hillary Clinton is still blaming Russia for her loss of the 2016 Presidential election? Of course, you would, but you may be surprised at just how hyperbolic it has become.

Hillary Clinton compared alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election to the September 11th attacks a few months ago: “We had really well-respected security, intelligence veterans saying this was a cyber 9/11, in the sense it was a direct attack on our institutions,” Clinton claimed. “That may sound dramatic, but we know that they probed and tried to intrude into election systems — not just the social media propaganda part of their campaign.”

“This is an ongoing threat,” she declared, adding that the Russians are “not done.”

Well, that’s one insanely insensitive way to blame the American public for your loss, essentially claiming that everyone who voted against you was a victim of a “cyber 9/11.”

It’s mainly funny given that Hillary Clinton is accusing the Russians of conspiring against her when she had no problem plotting with them just over a half-decade ago. Hillary wasn’t comparing the Russians to al-Qaeda when they were giving her money. How could she and why would she?

As we’ve covered in previous articles, the Clinton family has allegedly played a significant role in the Uranium One deal, which has now become the subject of scandal due to the circumstances surrounding the issue. The Uranium One deal allowed 20 percent of the United States uranium reserves to be awarded to a firm with Russian interests. The deal made little sense and was potentially responsible for weakening national security. In fact, the deal only makes sense because the Clinton Foundation received kickbacks from Russian donors around the approximate time the deal happened. There’s also claims that Bill Clinton gave a speech to a Russian bank in Moscow and somehow earned $500,000 for his time. Is that the going rate for a short speech to another country?

That was back in 2010, but now the heat is finally turning up on the Clinton brigade. All eyes will be watching closely to see what comes up next since the lid blew off the Uranium scandal. Some Republicans have called for an investigation, and they got their wish.

Now, things are getting serious. According to NBC News, on the orders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain the evidence they found in a now dormant criminal investigation into a controversial uranium deal that critics have linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News.

The interviews with FBI agents are part of the Justice Department’s effort to fulfill a promise an assistant attorney general made to Congress last month to examine whether a special counsel was warranted to look into what has become known as the Uranium One deal, a senior Justice Department official said.

At issue is a 2010 transaction in which the Obama Administration allowed the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia’s state atomic energy company. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and the State Department was one of nine agencies that agreed to approve the deal after finding no threat to U.S. national security.

A senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the initial FBI investigation told NBC News there were allegations of corruption surrounding the process under which the U.S. government approved the sale. But no charges were filed.

In recent weeks, FBI agents who investigated the case have been asked by Justice Department prosecutors to describe the results of their probe. The agents also have been asked if there was any improper effort to squash a prosecution, the law enforcement sources say.

The senior Justice Department official said the questions were part of an effort by the Sessions team to get up to speed on the controversial case, in the face of allegations from Congressional Republicans that it was mishandled.

According to one legal analyst, there are at least thirteen crimes Hillary could be charged with for her alleged involvement in the scandalous deal. Of course, this is Hillary Clinton we’re talking about. She’s had far more than thirteen scandals under her lengthy career, and nothing too intense has ever happened with those.

Is it time for Hillary Clinton to be brought to justice?

Justice defeating the Clinton armada and tax reform would be the achievement of a lifetime and potentially the reason Trump wins in 2020 if he decides to run for reelection.